Certainly it is correct to say you censor yourself if you exercise "tasteful restraint" in comments you make in front your boss.
The networks employ censors that review content of shows and flag content that violates either FCC standards or even their own internal policies.
Censorship does have a negative connotation as one of the worst examples we were told of were toletarian [sp?] governments controlling newspapers and television to limit the information available to citizens.
So, it is indeed a question of semantics. When someone cries CENSORSHIP!! when a broadcaster decides what it wants to play or not play, they run the risk of being seen as overreacting by using a word that has a more common use and meaning that is perhaps inappropriate to describe what really happened.
This is thesame conclusion I have been reaching recently. Yesterday's story about Cartoon Network pulling shows (and apparently Nickelodeon/Viacom too with Invader Zim) initially got me going in a 'what the hell are they thinking' mode. Now I am realizing that these are businesses making business decisions.
It doesn't make much sense from a 'what is the harm is playing these songs' viewpoint. But that isn't really the point, is it. What is the old saying, perception *is* reality. Right now many people are very emotional and extremely sensitive. The businessmen making these decisions to *temporarily* halt airing shows and playing songs are doing it for what they must think are valid business reasons.
I don't agree that running shows/songs will really do any real harm to anyone, but the perception must be that real or imagined, people will react negatively to certain content. Some people here are making comments that this kind of decision is gutless. Think about it though, are they motivated by people's perception of their intestinal fortitude, or by their stockholder's perception of their responsible handling of their financial charge?
Over the past week I have struggled with many of the same questions, and I have been browsing around the web looking for, if not answers, at least perspective.
Interestingly enough, I happened to visit Islamway over the weekend before this b'nai brith story broke on slashdot (and apparently before they had taken down much of the content on their site, including the message boards).
I came across an article that helped me gain some perspective (it didn't answer every question I have, but it did provide some valid insight). Muslims feel unjustly persecuted and oppressed, and I can understand how this would instill hatred in many individuals who have experienced this.
It is a long piece, and I probably shouldn't post it in its entirety; but the link I bookmarked doesn't seem to work at the moment, and I don't feel I could adequately summarize, so at the risk of being modded down:
Islam: Misunderstood throughout the World
http://www.islamway.com/eng/html/article.php?sid=9 1
James A. Bill (professor of government and director of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia) writes - 'By the turn of the century, for the first time in history, the number of Muslims (those who practice Islam) will have surpassed the number of Christians in the world.
Islam is a monotheistic religion, civilization and way of life now practiced by 1.1 billion people. Easily the world's fastest growing religion, Islam is not confined to the Middle East. It is a truly universal force. More Muslims live in America today than all the Presbyterians and Episcopalians put together.
There are more than 1,200 mosques in the United States and 1000 mosques in England, where the Muslim community has established its own national parliament. There are more Muslims in Indonesia than in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia put together. More live in Malaysia than in Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait combined. Nearly 20 million Muslims live in China.
Wherever one looks, Islam is on the move. As the people of many societies find themselves rootless, disconnected and alienated, they increasingly seek help in a comforting Islamic ideological refuge. In a world of incoherent violence, widening inequities, political corruption and shattered families, many are massing behind the green flag of Islam. This is essentially a populist movement, a bubbling up from below, a march of the distressed, the dispossessed and the oppressed.....
... Although the great bulk of Muslims seek to improve their status through quiet, moderate and pacific means, violent methods have been adopted by fringe groups--elements also present in Christianity and Judaism. Oblivious to their own profound ignorance and often harboring crude political motivations, many Western opinion leaders consistently label all Muslims with words such as 'aggressive', 'militant' and 'uncivilized'. Islam is the 'religion of the sword'; Muslim activists are 'terrorists,' and Muslims countries that challenge Western policies are 'outlaw states'.
Muslims themselves maintain quite a different worldview. It is in the deepest interest of the United States to attempt to understand this perspective. In brief, Muslims see themselves as the afflicted, not the afflictors; they feel themselves desperately on the defensive, not on the offensive; they consider themselves the objects of violence, not the initiators of violence. In sum, Muslims across the world consider themselves victims. In support of their position, Muslims will take their Christian and Jewish neighbors on a quick tour of the world. They inevitably begin with Bosnia, where nearly 200,000 Muslims have been slaughtered by Serbian Christians. Muslims are horrified and sickened by the fact that 22,000 Muslim women, aged 9 to 82, have been raped by Christian troopers. Muslims wonder privately about the weak and very late Western response.
In Kashmir, Indian occupying forces violently oppress Muslims, killing thousands of Kashmiris. Elsewhere in India in December 1992 and January 1993, violent Hindu mobs went on a rampage in Bombay, killing over 800 Muslims, destroying 5000 Muslim homes and forcing 200,000 Muslims to flee the city. Mosques were firebombed and mothers watched as their sons were pulled from their homes and slain or burned alive. In Tajikstan and other places in Central Asia, the Communists have made a comeback and, with the help of Russian troops, have attacked and killed more than 20,000 Muslims. Another 350,000 have been forced to flee.
Even in China, Muslims find themselves under heavy military pressure. Chinese troops oppress Muslims in the western province of Xinjiang.
Even in many of the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East, Muslims find themselves under attack where the leadership is essentially secular. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein continues his war of genocide against the Shi'ites in the south.
In Algeria, when the Islamists scored a surprise victory in the December 1991 elections, the regime declared the election null and void. Since then, Algeria has been the scene of a bloody civil war. The government blames Islamic fundamentalists of striking terror in the very same areas where they had received majority of votes from. The governments explanation of fundamentalists unleashing waves of terror in their own strongholds, sounds very plausible indeed and casts shadows of dound over the credentials of the secular government instead.
In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's regime, facing widespread disaffection of its people, pursues a policy of torture and execution of members of the Muslim opposition. In March 1993, his troops fired upon 500 unarmed Muslims at prayer in the Rahman Mosque in Aswan, killing nine and injuring 50. In the West Bank, another more widely publicized mosque massacre occurred a year later in Hebron when a Jewish settler killed 30 in a group of praying Muslims before the survivors could beat him to death. This litany of anti-Islamic violence is recognized and recited by Muslims everywhere. The situation is exacerbated when Muslims incredulously find themselves labeled as terrorists and when Western governments encourage their secular Middle Eastern allies to confront Muslim populist movements with brute force. One result of these Western perceptions and policies, of course, is that they begin to radicalize the huge mass of moderate Muslim believers. Meanwhile, the extremists on the fringes become more active and militant.
A vicious cycle of misunderstanding, misguided policy and increasing violence has been set in motion. Before this vicious cycle begins to spin wildly out of control, it is essential that non-Muslims make a major effort to slow it down. Such an effort will, as the very first step, require that stereotypes be discarded.
Second, recent history shows that the application of force is not always an effective way of countering a system of deeply held ideas and beliefs. The steady flame of resurgent Islam will not be extinguished by the breeze of bullets or the blast of missiles. A recently published report in Washington Post, confirms Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the United States despite hostile government policies and negative media stereotyping, only goes on to prove the truth of this statement. It is time for everyone to take a crash course on Islam. More recently, CNN too published a report, first of US kind ever done in this part of the World, titled as: Islam in US - Growing and maturing.'
>neither international law nor U.S. domestic law prohibits the killing of those directing armed forces in war
Perhaps exactly the reason Bush (and CNN, apparently) have declared this a 'war'?
I've read reports on CNN now that there is a 25 year old executive order that bans assinataion (at least by the CIA) and that there is talk of suspending that order.
Powell said the executive order signed in 1976 by President Gerald Ford forbidding assassination "is under review." Critics charge lifting the order would reduce U.S. moral prestige around the world and make U.S. officials from the president down less safe.
This reminds me of the tactics of the US Marhall's Office in rounding up stupid criminals...
I'm not exactly sure of the details fo how they do this, but basically they lure wanted fugitives into surrendering themselves by posing as some sort of prize patrol or something.
Somehow, they get the word out that "you may already have won" some fabulous prize to a whole bunch of people they are tring to arrest. These dumb criminals show up at the time and place in the notice to "collect". There they are asked to present ID and "sign this" (presumably to verify their eligibility for the "prize").
Then they are led to an adjoining room where they are placed under arrest.
ok, I have to reply to myself to update what I said after visiting islamway.com
so this is a weblog that does just promote islam, and the deal is that someone posted comments looking for people interested in joining bin Laden.
The thing actually has a slashdot-type feel (It even has a poll placed on the right). And, just like slashdot, it allows visitors to post comments.
So, what is B'nai Brith proposing? To ban Islamic-oriented websites? That would be like banning technology-oriented sites (like slashdot) because "hackers" might use the site in some way that facilitates illegal activity.
"stricter regulation of hate-related material" is what the Wired article says. If the site is geared toward promotion of terrorism, sure. If this site is (as it seems to be) merely an outlet for information of interest to Islamics, get lost.
>facilitate better communication for people by giving up the bandwidth normally used for their ads.
Except that the thing still pops under and uses bandwidth and links to their site. It *is* still an ad. It is an ad disguised as a statement of sympathy.
>I don't know why your comment was modded as funny
Neither do I. I certainly didn't intend it as such.
mmm... that might have made sense if any of the posts were about stopping websites that are attempting to convert people to Islam.
What I read was about websites looking to recruit followers to bin Laden. I didn't see anywhere that anyone suggested/bin/laden == Islam == terrorists.
Contrary to what Howard Stern has been screaming, Islamic Arabs are not all terrorists that should be reduced to glowing ash. It is probably far closer to the truth to say that there is a very small minority of Islamic Arabs who are using their religeous beliefs as an excuse to carry out terrible crimes that actually are quite contrary to the principles of Islam.
Funny how you study history in school, but they leave out really important stuff. I remember studying the war of 1812 and how the British burned down the White House. What I sure don't remember being taught was that the British were essentitally terrorists that slaughtered women and children and that they basically marched into the capitol one night with the express intent to burn it to the ground.
Over the weekend I watched "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson) again. If you've seen this movie, you know how they portray the British as carrying out ruthless acts of terrorism in slaughtering civilians (again, something left out of the history books *I* studied). The underlying theme and character motivation I got out of the movie was that the British commanders (Cornwalis, in particular) hoped to keep their system of aristocratic rule intact in the face of the rising political ideals of the American rebellion.
In the end, as the Americans drive his once proud army into the Atlantic where French ships block his retreat, Cornwalis hangs his head and mutters "How could it come to this, defeated by a rabble of farmers! Everything will change... everything *has* changed."
The point of the article is that those behind the terror attacks face a similar displacement of their way of life by American power and ideals. They have struck out against prominent symbols of American values. In doing so, they have once again "awakened the sleeping giant".
This is a clash of fundamental values. I fear it will be long and bloody.
This episode has Dib's father (Dr. Membrane, is it?) accidentally unleashing an explosion that results in a large mushroom cloud presumably leveling a large portion of the nearby city.
>"Walk of Doom"....involve(s) Zim wandering around a large city (and even going up in one of the skyscrapers), but I don't see any reason to pull it
IIRC, Zim is mistaken for a bank robber and flees the SWAT team to the top of the building where he evades a circling helicopter. If I was a Nickelodeon exec, I probably would hesitate to air stuff like this right now too.
I love this show and I wouldn't personally think any of it was in poor taste just now, but probably there are those who would be bothered by images of explosions, police swarming over a skyscraper and the like. I think the execs would rather be criticised for being overly cautious in what they air right now than getting flak for not being sensitive enough.
I think that's hardly the point. Someone else already put it better that I can, so at the risk of being moderated redundant...
It is about avoiding criticism for being insensitive to the viewers that might not really want to see TV shows featuring buildings being blown up right now.
Scenario A: A network airs a show that contains elements of terrorsts, bombings and/or skyscrapers being destroyed. Lots of people seeing the show feel that the timing of the show's airing is somehow inappropriate given the recent terrorist attack. Many of these people (Moms, etc) call or write the network to express their feelings that the network is insensitive in airing said show right after a bunch of people have died. Network executives are put in a position of either apologizing or explaining why they decided to air the show.
Scenario B: Network executives decide that airing a show might be considered in poor taste by a substantial number of viewers and decide to postpone showing an episode or two, possible indefinitely. Bunch of guys on popular websites post comments criticizing the networks for pulling shows they like.
I'm not saying the decision is right or wrong, or that it is this black and white... just that networks would probably rather hold off showing a few episodes than be seen as insensitivly airing potentially inappropriate material.
Did Nickelodeon pull "Invader Zim" episodes as well? Supposed to show new episodes Friday nights but another show was on instead.
Reruns of the previous "season" are shown Sunday mornings but again was not aired today. I had assumed they just changed the schedule until I saw this blurb about Gundam and Bebop. Zim has had scenes of descruction like the giant hamster stepping on buildings, so it might not be too much of a stretch that they pulled this show for the same reasons.
HA! Back when we played commander keen it was on an 8086 with only 256K! I didn't even _have_ a monitor, so I had to play by listening to the sounds made by the internal speaker....AND WE LIKED IT!
Just what I though. As much as I'd like to trust in human nature for everyone to use somthing like this responsibly, I'd be hesitant to leave it open for just the kind of reasons you mention.
Even keeping log files might not be enough to resolve you of responsibility if someone were to use your connection for a malicious attack on someone else using your access point and IP. If it got traced back to you, would having log files be an adequate defense?
"There was a ddos attack carried out yesterday that appears to have been controlled from your DSL IP"
"Oh, I looked through my logs and it looks like someone connected through my wireless access gateway at the time this happened. Here is the info..."
"That's nice, but _why_ are you leaving this open for anyone passing by to use? I'm afraid you had better come with us to answer more questions. Oh, by the way... we had better take any computers and networking equipment you have with us in case we need it later for evidence. Oh, don't worry... you'll get it all back when we are done with our investigation. *chuckle*"
It is a shame, but the potential exposure would probably make this problematic for a lot of people, myself included.
Disclaimer: I grew up in a _very_ relireous christian home and spent my youth first absorbing the teachings of the church, then rebelling against it (and the perceived hipocracy of those who taught).
It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.
You know, that's what _always_ gets me going about TV news outlets. They start out with really excellent coverage as the events unfold, but eventually the action dies down and they shift into "Emmy mode".
When the broadcast stops being an "as it happens" coverage event and turns into a production, complete with theme music, it is time to turn it off.
I have a mental image of what goes on in a planning room while the story is unfolding and the real "news" is being reported:
Someone is pitching ideas on the different angles they could go after and what they think the other outlets might be planning and how they might try to outdo the others to garner an Emmy nomination.
"How about this... 'Terror in the Towers'..."
"Oh, oh, I've got it... 'America under Attack'"
"Good! I like that. Let's call Sydney and see if he can come up with some serious sounding theme music like he did last time....and get the graphics department to come up with 4 or 5 designs for us to look at by 2:00.... And will someone _please_ get Blitzer to change his tie! That color is just all wrong!"
Agreed. When I first heard about things Tuesday morning, it was from a phone call to my boss in the next cube. He called over the wall "Hey, did you hear there was a plane crash in New York? Cathy (one of our coworkers on the phone working from home) says it crashed into one of the buildings downtown!"
First I heard of it. I was taking my morning coffee and/. break and immediately hit reload and there was the first story posted with like already 500+ comments. I opened new browser windows and tried cnn, msnbc, etc and got nothing.
/. was virtually the only source of info we had for the first hour or so until someone found a radio and we started listening to Rather. Someone finally stole the TV from the video conference room and hooked it up in the kitchen so we could get CNN.
Funny thing was that the info and discussion on/. was so much better and spot-on that I kept leaving the cube where the radio was when major development happened (like the towers collapsing) and going back to my cube to reload/.
I think/. did indeed provide a very valuable service on that day and the days that followed. Thanks guys.
>Ariel Sharon ordered the massacre of around 2,000 Palestinians at refugee camps in 1982
I remembered this masacre of Palestinian refugees by Phalangist Militia and the controversy about the complicity of the Israeli military at the time.
I decided to refresh my memory about this episode before responding and found a recent story about this from the Washington Post:
JERUSALEM, June 24 -- Nearly two decades after an official Israeli investigation found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian refugees in Beirut, new calls are being issued to try him for war crimes.
I had originally intended to respond saying that those accusations had never been proven. They still haven't but I think the thrust of my intended reply would have been incorrect:
No one has ever been indicted, tried or convicted for the September 1982 killings in Beirut. At least 700 Palestinian refugees were slaughtered at the camps; some estimates run to more than 2,000. Among the dead were women, children and the elderly, some of whom were tortured, disfigured or raped before they were mowed down with machine-gun fire.
The killings were carried out by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied with, and in some cases trained by, Israel. The militiamen, known as Phalangists, had been at war with the Palestinians in Lebanon for years, and detested them. Their passion had been stoked by the assassination of their leader, Bashir Jemayel, the newly elected Christian president of Lebanon.
Soon after the Israeli army took control of West Beirut, Sharon, who had overall command of forces in Beirut, authorized the Phalangists to enter the camps in search of Palestinian guerrillas. The militiamen found few guerrillas, but in a rampage that lasted nearly three days, they killed civilians by the hundreds.
Sharon maintained that he "never imagined" the Phalangists would go on such a killing spree. But the official Israeli commission of inquiry said that knowing the Phalangists' violent history and the tensions brought about by Jemayel's assassination, Sharon should have realized the probability of a massacre if the militiamen entered the camps. The commission also said Sharon and other Israeli military figures failed to react quickly and decisively to halt the massacre after the first reports of killings.
...and I agree with your point that neither 'side' is blameless
I agree and have a simple 2-card 386 setup myself. But what I haven't seen answered in the comments is the question of power use, heat and noise.
My setup is an old compaq laptop in a docking station - it has a 25W pwr supply and a pretty quiet fan in the PS. It does give off some decent heat, though. Sitting under the stairs in the basement, this isn't an issue. I have had some challenges with having the older hardware fail on me. I lucked out when I got this machine and actually have two plus some parts, but I would think reliability in older hardware would be the biggest issue with going the PC route.
I would be interested though to hear what the power use and heat generation is on one of these linksys or smc solutions, though. My sister is thinking about getting DSL at her place and networking a couple machines. Her place is smaller and she would probably prefer an out-of-the-box solution that can sit on her desk an just work.
Re:Why do you need a map?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
...because we are naturally curious.
Saw sort of a map of the scene of the attack on CNN yesterday. People want to understand this on many different levels.
Eyewitness accounts, images from space, theories and speculation about how it was carried out and, yes, a map of the affected area are all legitimate pieces of information that I want to help me come to terms with the impact of this tragedy.
Re:The towers collapsed for a simple reason!
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Right. The fact that the towers did not immediately topple over from the impact is evidence of this. In fact, they did not fall over horizontally, but rather fell in a manner similar to deliberate (demolition) implosions.
I have seen an interview with the man who was involved with the buildings' design (can't remember his name) and he said that the way the building collapsed some time after the impacts told him that the heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the structual steel enough for the top floors to start to collapse. Once this started, a "pancake" effect began. The building was designed to withstand fire for an hour and a half, but this would have been fire of things already in the building, not thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Essentialy, the weight of each successive floor that collapsed started a chain-reaction that made the entire structure implode.
Slashdot Mirror
I got to the page linked and I got the exploit code for some April 1 exploit.
I got to the top news page before the site stopped responding, and there was no mention of any new IIS worm attacks.
Certainly it is correct to say you censor yourself if you exercise "tasteful restraint" in comments you make in front your boss.
The networks employ censors that review content of shows and flag content that violates either FCC standards or even their own internal policies.
Censorship does have a negative connotation as one of the worst examples we were told of were toletarian [sp?] governments controlling newspapers and television to limit the information available to citizens.
So, it is indeed a question of semantics. When someone cries CENSORSHIP!! when a broadcaster decides what it wants to play or not play, they run the risk of being seen as overreacting by using a word that has a more common use and meaning that is perhaps inappropriate to describe what really happened.
Ok, the equine assault is now excessive.
This is thesame conclusion I have been reaching recently. Yesterday's story about Cartoon Network pulling shows (and apparently Nickelodeon/Viacom too with Invader Zim) initially got me going in a 'what the hell are they thinking' mode. Now I am realizing that these are businesses making business decisions.
It doesn't make much sense from a 'what is the harm is playing these songs' viewpoint. But that isn't really the point, is it. What is the old saying, perception *is* reality. Right now many people are very emotional and extremely sensitive. The businessmen making these decisions to *temporarily* halt airing shows and playing songs are doing it for what they must think are valid business reasons.
I don't agree that running shows/songs will really do any real harm to anyone, but the perception must be that real or imagined, people will react negatively to certain content. Some people here are making comments that this kind of decision is gutless. Think about it though, are they motivated by people's perception of their intestinal fortitude, or by their stockholder's perception of their responsible handling of their financial charge?
Over the past week I have struggled with many of the same questions, and I have been browsing around the web looking for, if not answers, at least perspective.
Interestingly enough, I happened to visit Islamway over the weekend before this b'nai brith story broke on slashdot (and apparently before they had taken down much of the content on their site, including the message boards).
I came across an article that helped me gain some perspective (it didn't answer every question I have, but it did provide some valid insight). Muslims feel unjustly persecuted and oppressed, and I can understand how this would instill hatred in many individuals who have experienced this.
It is a long piece, and I probably shouldn't post it in its entirety; but the link I bookmarked doesn't seem to work at the moment, and I don't feel I could adequately summarize, so at the risk of being modded down:
Islam: Misunderstood throughout the World http://www.islamway.com/eng/html/article.php?sid=9 1
James A. Bill (professor of government and director of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary in Virginia) writes - 'By the turn of the century, for the first time in history, the number of Muslims (those who practice Islam) will have surpassed the number of Christians in the world.
Islam is a monotheistic religion, civilization and way of life now practiced by 1.1 billion people. Easily the world's fastest growing religion, Islam is not confined to the Middle East. It is a truly universal force. More Muslims live in America today than all the Presbyterians and Episcopalians put together.
There are more than 1,200 mosques in the United States and 1000 mosques in England, where the Muslim community has established its own national parliament. There are more Muslims in Indonesia than in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia put together. More live in Malaysia than in Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait combined. Nearly 20 million Muslims live in China.
Wherever one looks, Islam is on the move. As the people of many societies find themselves rootless, disconnected and alienated, they increasingly seek help in a comforting Islamic ideological refuge. In a world of incoherent violence, widening inequities, political corruption and shattered families, many are massing behind the green flag of Islam. This is essentially a populist movement, a bubbling up from below, a march of the distressed, the dispossessed and the oppressed. ....
Muslims themselves maintain quite a different worldview. It is in the deepest interest of the United States to attempt to understand this perspective. In brief, Muslims see themselves as the afflicted, not the afflictors; they feel themselves desperately on the defensive, not on the offensive; they consider themselves the objects of violence, not the initiators of violence. In sum, Muslims across the world consider themselves victims. In support of their position, Muslims will take their Christian and Jewish neighbors on a quick tour of the world. They inevitably begin with Bosnia, where nearly 200,000 Muslims have been slaughtered by Serbian Christians. Muslims are horrified and sickened by the fact that 22,000 Muslim women, aged 9 to 82, have been raped by Christian troopers. Muslims wonder privately about the weak and very late Western response.
In Kashmir, Indian occupying forces violently oppress Muslims, killing thousands of Kashmiris. Elsewhere in India in December 1992 and January 1993, violent Hindu mobs went on a rampage in Bombay, killing over 800 Muslims, destroying 5000 Muslim homes and forcing 200,000 Muslims to flee the city. Mosques were firebombed and mothers watched as their sons were pulled from their homes and slain or burned alive. In Tajikstan and other places in Central Asia, the Communists have made a comeback and, with the help of Russian troops, have attacked and killed more than 20,000 Muslims. Another 350,000 have been forced to flee.
Even in China, Muslims find themselves under heavy military pressure. Chinese troops oppress Muslims in the western province of Xinjiang.
Even in many of the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East, Muslims find themselves under attack where the leadership is essentially secular. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein continues his war of genocide against the Shi'ites in the south.
In Algeria, when the Islamists scored a surprise victory in the December 1991 elections, the regime declared the election null and void. Since then, Algeria has been the scene of a bloody civil war. The government blames Islamic fundamentalists of striking terror in the very same areas where they had received majority of votes from. The governments explanation of fundamentalists unleashing waves of terror in their own strongholds, sounds very plausible indeed and casts shadows of dound over the credentials of the secular government instead.
In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's regime, facing widespread disaffection of its people, pursues a policy of torture and execution of members of the Muslim opposition. In March 1993, his troops fired upon 500 unarmed Muslims at prayer in the Rahman Mosque in Aswan, killing nine and injuring 50. In the West Bank, another more widely publicized mosque massacre occurred a year later in Hebron when a Jewish settler killed 30 in a group of praying Muslims before the survivors could beat him to death. This litany of anti-Islamic violence is recognized and recited by Muslims everywhere. The situation is exacerbated when Muslims incredulously find themselves labeled as terrorists and when Western governments encourage their secular Middle Eastern allies to confront Muslim populist movements with brute force. One result of these Western perceptions and policies, of course, is that they begin to radicalize the huge mass of moderate Muslim believers. Meanwhile, the extremists on the fringes become more active and militant.
A vicious cycle of misunderstanding, misguided policy and increasing violence has been set in motion. Before this vicious cycle begins to spin wildly out of control, it is essential that non-Muslims make a major effort to slow it down. Such an effort will, as the very first step, require that stereotypes be discarded.
Second, recent history shows that the application of force is not always an effective way of countering a system of deeply held ideas and beliefs. The steady flame of resurgent Islam will not be extinguished by the breeze of bullets or the blast of missiles. A recently published report in Washington Post, confirms Islam to be the fastest growing religion in the United States despite hostile government policies and negative media stereotyping, only goes on to prove the truth of this statement. It is time for everyone to take a crash course on Islam. More recently, CNN too published a report, first of US kind ever done in this part of the World, titled as: Islam in US - Growing and maturing.'
Perhaps exactly the reason Bush (and CNN, apparently) have declared this a 'war'?
I've read reports on CNN now that there is a 25 year old executive order that bans assinataion (at least by the CIA) and that there is talk of suspending that order.
Powell said the executive order signed in 1976 by President Gerald Ford forbidding assassination "is under review." Critics charge lifting the order would reduce U.S. moral prestige around the world and make U.S. officials from the president down less safe.
good point.
This reminds me of the tactics of the US Marhall's Office in rounding up stupid criminals...
I'm not exactly sure of the details fo how they do this, but basically they lure wanted fugitives into surrendering themselves by posing as some sort of prize patrol or something.
Somehow, they get the word out that "you may already have won" some fabulous prize to a whole bunch of people they are tring to arrest. These dumb criminals show up at the time and place in the notice to "collect". There they are asked to present ID and "sign this" (presumably to verify their eligibility for the "prize").
Then they are led to an adjoining room where they are placed under arrest.
ok, I have to reply to myself to update what I said after visiting islamway.com
so this is a weblog that does just promote islam, and the deal is that someone posted comments looking for people interested in joining bin Laden.
The thing actually has a slashdot-type feel (It even has a poll placed on the right). And, just like slashdot, it allows visitors to post comments.
So, what is B'nai Brith proposing? To ban Islamic-oriented websites? That would be like banning technology-oriented sites (like slashdot) because "hackers" might use the site in some way that facilitates illegal activity.
"stricter regulation of hate-related material" is what the Wired article says. If the site is geared toward promotion of terrorism, sure. If this site is (as it seems to be) merely an outlet for information of interest to Islamics, get lost.
>facilitate better communication for people by giving up the bandwidth normally used for their ads.
Except that the thing still pops under and uses bandwidth and links to their site. It *is* still an ad. It is an ad disguised as a statement of sympathy.
>I don't know why your comment was modded as funny
Neither do I. I certainly didn't intend it as such.
mmm... that might have made sense if any of the posts were about stopping websites that are attempting to convert people to Islam.
/bin/laden == Islam == terrorists.
What I read was about websites looking to recruit followers to bin Laden. I didn't see anywhere that anyone suggested
Contrary to what Howard Stern has been screaming, Islamic Arabs are not all terrorists that should be reduced to glowing ash. It is probably far closer to the truth to say that there is a very small minority of Islamic Arabs who are using their religeous beliefs as an excuse to carry out terrible crimes that actually are quite contrary to the principles of Islam.
Kind of like the crusades, no?
Funny how you study history in school, but they leave out really important stuff. I remember studying the war of 1812 and how the British burned down the White House. What I sure don't remember being taught was that the British were essentitally terrorists that slaughtered women and children and that they basically marched into the capitol one night with the express intent to burn it to the ground.
Over the weekend I watched "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson) again. If you've seen this movie, you know how they portray the British as carrying out ruthless acts of terrorism in slaughtering civilians (again, something left out of the history books *I* studied). The underlying theme and character motivation I got out of the movie was that the British commanders (Cornwalis, in particular) hoped to keep their system of aristocratic rule intact in the face of the rising political ideals of the American rebellion.
In the end, as the Americans drive his once proud army into the Atlantic where French ships block his retreat, Cornwalis hangs his head and mutters "How could it come to this, defeated by a rabble of farmers! Everything will change... everything *has* changed."
The point of the article is that those behind the terror attacks face a similar displacement of their way of life by American power and ideals. They have struck out against prominent symbols of American values. In doing so, they have once again "awakened the sleeping giant".
This is a clash of fundamental values. I fear it will be long and bloody.
>the "Parent Teacher Night" ...
...involve(s) Zim wandering around a large city (and even going up in one of the skyscrapers), but I don't see any reason to pull it
This episode has Dib's father (Dr. Membrane, is it?) accidentally unleashing an explosion that results in a large mushroom cloud presumably leveling a large portion of the nearby city.
>"Walk of Doom".
IIRC, Zim is mistaken for a bank robber and flees the SWAT team to the top of the building where he evades a circling helicopter. If I was a Nickelodeon exec, I probably would hesitate to air stuff like this right now too.
I love this show and I wouldn't personally think any of it was in poor taste just now, but probably there are those who would be bothered by images of explosions, police swarming over a skyscraper and the like. I think the execs would rather be criticised for being overly cautious in what they air right now than getting flak for not being sensitive enough.
I think that's hardly the point. Someone else already put it better that I can, so at the risk of being moderated redundant...
It is about avoiding criticism for being insensitive to the viewers that might not really want to see TV shows featuring buildings being blown up right now.
Scenario A: A network airs a show that contains elements of terrorsts, bombings and/or skyscrapers being destroyed. Lots of people seeing the show feel that the timing of the show's airing is somehow inappropriate given the recent terrorist attack. Many of these people (Moms, etc) call or write the network to express their feelings that the network is insensitive in airing said show right after a bunch of people have died. Network executives are put in a position of either apologizing or explaining why they decided to air the show.
Scenario B: Network executives decide that airing a show might be considered in poor taste by a substantial number of viewers and decide to postpone showing an episode or two, possible indefinitely. Bunch of guys on popular websites post comments criticizing the networks for pulling shows they like.
I'm not saying the decision is right or wrong, or that it is this black and white... just that networks would probably rather hold off showing a few episodes than be seen as insensitivly airing potentially inappropriate material.
Did Nickelodeon pull "Invader Zim" episodes as well? Supposed to show new episodes Friday nights but another show was on instead.
Reruns of the previous "season" are shown Sunday mornings but again was not aired today. I had assumed they just changed the schedule until I saw this blurb about Gundam and Bebop. Zim has had scenes of descruction like the giant hamster stepping on buildings, so it might not be too much of a stretch that they pulled this show for the same reasons.
HA! Back when we played commander keen it was on an 8086 with only 256K! I didn't even _have_ a monitor, so I had to play by listening to the sounds made by the internal speaker. ...AND WE LIKED IT!
the history of Fry's electronics, INC.
Just what I though. As much as I'd like to trust in human nature for everyone to use somthing like this responsibly, I'd be hesitant to leave it open for just the kind of reasons you mention.
Even keeping log files might not be enough to resolve you of responsibility if someone were to use your connection for a malicious attack on someone else using your access point and IP. If it got traced back to you, would having log files be an adequate defense?
"There was a ddos attack carried out yesterday that appears to have been controlled from your DSL IP"
"Oh, I looked through my logs and it looks like someone connected through my wireless access gateway at the time this happened. Here is the info..."
"That's nice, but _why_ are you leaving this open for anyone passing by to use? I'm afraid you had better come with us to answer more questions. Oh, by the way... we had better take any computers and networking equipment you have with us in case we need it later for evidence. Oh, don't worry... you'll get it all back when we are done with our investigation. *chuckle*"
It is a shame, but the potential exposure would probably make this problematic for a lot of people, myself included.
>Why would something so trivial with some "followers" drive you away?
It drove me away from the 'church', not my beliefs.
Disclaimer: I grew up in a _very_ relireous christian home and spent my youth first absorbing the teachings of the church, then rebelling against it (and the perceived hipocracy of those who taught).
It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.
Yeah, they've come a long way from when they were described as
Slashdot.org, a popular online hangout for hackers
When the broadcast stops being an "as it happens" coverage event and turns into a production, complete with theme music, it is time to turn it off.
I have a mental image of what goes on in a planning room while the story is unfolding and the real "news" is being reported:
Someone is pitching ideas on the different angles they could go after and what they think the other outlets might be planning and how they might try to outdo the others to garner an Emmy nomination.
"How about this... 'Terror in the Towers'..."
"Oh, oh, I've got it... 'America under Attack'"
"Good! I like that. Let's call Sydney and see if he can come up with some serious sounding theme music like he did last time. ...and get the graphics department to come up with 4 or 5 designs for us to look at by 2:00.... And will someone _please_ get Blitzer to change his tie! That color is just all wrong!"
Agreed. When I first heard about things Tuesday morning, it was from a phone call to my boss in the next cube. He called over the wall "Hey, did you hear there was a plane crash in New York? Cathy (one of our coworkers on the phone working from home) says it crashed into one of the buildings downtown!"
/. break and immediately hit reload and there was the first story posted with like already 500+ comments. I opened new browser windows and tried cnn, msnbc, etc and got nothing.
/. was so much better and spot-on that I kept leaving the cube where the radio was when major development happened (like the towers collapsing) and going back to my cube to reload /.
/. did indeed provide a very valuable service on that day and the days that followed. Thanks guys.
First I heard of it. I was taking my morning coffee and
/. was virtually the only source of info we had for the first hour or so until someone found a radio and we started listening to Rather. Someone finally stole the TV from the video conference room and hooked it up in the kitchen so we could get CNN.
Funny thing was that the info and discussion on
I think
I remembered this masacre of Palestinian refugees by Phalangist Militia and the controversy about the complicity of the Israeli military at the time.
I decided to refresh my memory about this episode before responding and found a recent story about this from the Washington Post:
JERUSALEM, June 24 -- Nearly two decades after an official Israeli investigation found Ariel Sharon indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian refugees in Beirut, new calls are being issued to try him for war crimes.
Sharon's Actions In 1982 Massacre Stir New Debate
I had originally intended to respond saying that those accusations had never been proven. They still haven't but I think the thrust of my intended reply would have been incorrect:
No one has ever been indicted, tried or convicted for the September 1982 killings in Beirut. At least 700 Palestinian refugees were slaughtered at the camps; some estimates run to more than 2,000. Among the dead were women, children and the elderly, some of whom were tortured, disfigured or raped before they were mowed down with machine-gun fire.
The killings were carried out by Lebanese Christian militiamen allied with, and in some cases trained by, Israel. The militiamen, known as Phalangists, had been at war with the Palestinians in Lebanon for years, and detested them. Their passion had been stoked by the assassination of their leader, Bashir Jemayel, the newly elected Christian president of Lebanon.
Soon after the Israeli army took control of West Beirut, Sharon, who had overall command of forces in Beirut, authorized the Phalangists to enter the camps in search of Palestinian guerrillas. The militiamen found few guerrillas, but in a rampage that lasted nearly three days, they killed civilians by the hundreds.
Sharon maintained that he "never imagined" the Phalangists would go on such a killing spree. But the official Israeli commission of inquiry said that knowing the Phalangists' violent history and the tensions brought about by Jemayel's assassination, Sharon should have realized the probability of a massacre if the militiamen entered the camps. The commission also said Sharon and other Israeli military figures failed to react quickly and decisively to halt the massacre after the first reports of killings.
I agree and have a simple 2-card 386 setup myself. But what I haven't seen answered in the comments is the question of power use, heat and noise.
My setup is an old compaq laptop in a docking station - it has a 25W pwr supply and a pretty quiet fan in the PS. It does give off some decent heat, though. Sitting under the stairs in the basement, this isn't an issue. I have had some challenges with having the older hardware fail on me. I lucked out when I got this machine and actually have two plus some parts, but I would think reliability in older hardware would be the biggest issue with going the PC route.
I would be interested though to hear what the power use and heat generation is on one of these linksys or smc solutions, though. My sister is thinking about getting DSL at her place and networking a couple machines. Her place is smaller and she would probably prefer an out-of-the-box solution that can sit on her desk an just work.
Saw sort of a map of the scene of the attack on CNN yesterday. People want to understand this on many different levels.
Eyewitness accounts, images from space, theories and speculation about how it was carried out and, yes, a map of the affected area are all legitimate pieces of information that I want to help me come to terms with the impact of this tragedy.
Right. The fact that the towers did not immediately topple over from the impact is evidence of this. In fact, they did not fall over horizontally, but rather fell in a manner similar to deliberate (demolition) implosions.
I have seen an interview with the man who was involved with the buildings' design (can't remember his name) and he said that the way the building collapsed some time after the impacts told him that the heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the structual steel enough for the top floors to start to collapse. Once this started, a "pancake" effect began. The building was designed to withstand fire for an hour and a half, but this would have been fire of things already in the building, not thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
Essentialy, the weight of each successive floor that collapsed started a chain-reaction that made the entire structure implode.